----- Original Message ----- From: "David Brin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 8:37 PM Subject: Re: Brin: US Budget
> > > >> Did you consider the tribute that Saudi Arabia > > and Kuwait > > >> were paying after the 1st Gulf War? > > The incredible fact that the 91 war was run at a > profit sort of helps make up (but nothing can ever > make up) for the Shame of 91. See http://www.davidbrin.com/shame.html I've read your analysis of this, but I'm not really sure exactly the steps you were advocating. Yes, I know its go into Iraq and, at a minimum, establish a safe base for Shiites there, and at a maximum take out Hussein ourselves. But, I don't see some steps that are crucial to me. Here's what I see happened. 1) Iraq invades Kuwait. 2) Bush sets up Desert Shield in Saudi Arabia and negotiates with many world leaders 3) He obtains agreement to oust Hussein's army from Kuwait, but to only do that. He agrees to not invade Iraq. He thinks he can inflict enough damage on Hussein's forces and reputation to cause him to be overthrown even operating within those boundaries. 4) Desert Storm happens, following that line. 5) There are uprisings in Iraq, which find encouragement and promises of support from Bush (Does anyone have a definitive, reliable source on what was dropped/broadcast?) The support was not as strong as it needed to be and the uprisings failed. (Does anyone know if anything was done at first...I don't recall how long it took the no fly zones to be established. What I am curious about is whether you disagree with my description of the chain of events, you think we should never have promised to not invade Iraq, or we should have promised to not invade Iraq and then invaded Iraq anyways...or pick option 4 that I can't see. :-) I think Bush was wrong to promise the people of Iraq more than he was willing to actually deliver. I have no argument with you faulting him for that. But, I don't think he was wrong to agree to not invade Iraq as the price of getting a great deal of cooperation. Without permission to launch an attack from Saudi Arabia, the war would have been more difficult. And, I remember how many reasonable people thought the war was going to be much harder than it was. IIRC, Powell warned that US casualties could be 40k injured and dead. The Iraqi army was considered battle tested, and about the 5th or 6th best Army in the world. The US had not faced such a strong force since Nam, or Korea. I also don't fault him for not invading Iraq...since he gave the word of the US, government to government, that we would not do so. He overestimated the effect of the defeated army; and underestimated the importance of the basically intact Republican Guard..his elite force. (At least that is how I remembered it.) In short, I see him as being pragmatic and taking half a loaf immediately (Kuwait retaken) while having reasonable expectations for the last half loaf (Hussein overthrown). It didn't happen, so his judgment was off. But, few at the time were advocating invading Iraq while the Arabs withdrew their support. One final personal political statement. I voted against him twice, so I have no stake in reviewing him positively...I just want to call the shots as I see them....even if it goes against the grain of my political persuasions. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
